It is generally considered common practice to increase the DC for external negative influences to checks (such as listening during bad weather, or attempting to climb a slippery surface). Conversely, if the negative influence was something internal, that acted directly against the character making the check (such as being drunk), a circumstance penalty is generally applied instead.
But with things like Assurance in the game, can we really consider it fair to increase the DC anymore? Isn't it cheating the player out of their ability? Should all negative circumstances be reflected as a penalty so that Assurance and similar abilities can function as intended?
That's a complex question, as it is mostly impacted by what penalties you think Assurance should negate.
I think it's a case of GM call. Is the bad weather the reason why you roll the die, and as such Assurance shouldn't help, or is it just an impediment, and in that case Assurance should get rid of it? That's your call, as a GM. The game is flexible but can't take every scenario into account (otherwise we'd be useless as GMs).
I suppose it's a matter of if the phenomena causes the main roll or is a mitigating factor on that roll. So, for example, the walkway being narrower alters the DC, while it being icy penalizes the roll. This seems to reflect a "circumstance penalty", which implies that too many mitigating factors shouldn't stack or some have to get shuffled onto the "harder DC" side of the equation (not that one would expect to encounter such complicated scenarios).
Trouble is that in such an open game this might lead to conundrums. Example: there might be ice too slippery for a PC's Assurance, but when that same ice is represented as a penalty (say on the task of navigating a narrow walkway), then that same PC can bypass it fine w/ Assurance. Or the GM might interpret the same situation as the ice being the main obstacle, and the narrowness of the walkway is factored in as the penalty.
Because of said conundrums and the endless permutations possible, it'd be hard to develop a rigorous methodology here. As often is the case, the game relies on the GM's reasonableness and fairness as an adjudicator (which ultimately it kind of always does).
I would have thought slippery ice on a narrow walkway would have been reflected as a DC increase, not as a penalty to the check.
I would have thought slippery ice on a narrow walkway would have been reflected as a DC increase, not as a penalty to the check.
There's that option too. :-P
I suppose ice & narrowness are enmeshed somewhat. But then again, the ice might be temporary, like from a spell. Wind might be a better example of a secondary, circumstantial factor. (As might running if running were a thing in PF2.)
How do official adventures present such things?
It seems they're just given as final DC values. Have they presented much in the form of penalties?
Step One is to check the wording on Assurance:
Assurance Feat 1
Fortune, General, Skill
Source Core Rulebook pg. 258 2.0
Prerequisites trained in at least one skill
Even in the worst circumstances, you can perform basic tasks. Choose a skill you’re trained in. You can forgo rolling a skill check for that skill to instead receive a result of 10 + your proficiency bonus (do not apply any other bonuses, penalties, or modifiers).
Special You can select this feat multiple times. Each time, choose a different skill and gain the benefits for that skill.
The flavor text is that the character has Assurance because the task is basic to them, something they routinely perform. The lack of any bonuses besides proficiency supports this interpretation--the character succeeds because success comes solely from practice.
Imagine a very narrow icy ledge. A character with Assurance would probably have walked lots of narrow ledges, perhaps his childhood homestead used narrow split logs as bridges over ravines. However, make the ledge very narrow and walking it would be beyond his experience with walking on logs. Narrowness sets a DC.
Icy means slippery. I myself grew up in Michigan and learned to walk on slick ice just fine, despite my low Dexterity. Slipperiness is routine to me. Thus, icy would be a circumstance penalty.
So ignoring how it interacts with assurance, the question is academic in the sense that it doesn't make a difference whether it's a penalty or alters the DC, generally speaking right?
Maybe there's some other specific abilities that let you ignore penalties to certain checks but I'm not thinking of other obvious ones.
Honestly I would say this is an example of a poor spot in the rules.
It would have been best to have never written abilities that ignore penalties as separate entities from changes to DC.
Of course, complaining about it isn't going to do us much good at this point and I'm not sure what is the better way to run things.
The idea of assurance is to allow you to succeed in "basic tasks". I think something like icy walkways I would be inclined to make alter the DC.
Something like being sickened would be a penalty.
Maybe my general guidance would be if it's affecting the character it's a penalty, if it's because of something external to the character then it's a DC adjustment.
The difference is this line:
A DC adjustment represents an essential difference in the difficulty of a task and applies to anyone attempting a specific check for it.A penalty applies only to the character, a DC adjustment is something about the check itself that changes for everyone.Assurance says "basic tasks" and is balanced so that characters can succeed at any at level Easy DC without a check, most below level Hard DCs, and as they level an increasing number of Incredibly Hard DCs, as well as an increasing number of static DCs with or without adjustments.
Personally, I think all of this makes sense.
That's a great find, and supports the idea of internal vs external.
If it's something that would affect everyone, it's an adjustment to DC while something specific to that individual is a penalty.
Sounds like a good rule of thumb to go by.
| 1 person marked this as a favorite. |
If it's something that would affect everyone, it's an adjustment to DC while something specific to that individual is a penalty.
That makes the number of situations where circumstance penalties get applied a lot narrower, which makes Assurance worse by extension. Not necessarily a bad thing, but worth pointing out.
I'm also not sure it's consistent with how the CRB vies them either. I tried looking for rules guidance and there's frustratingly little, but the book uses heavy fog that restricts vision as an example of a situation where someone would take a circumstance penalty to perception. Clearly an external factor.
The GMG also specifically references the environment and terrain as considerations when evaluating whether to apply an ad hoc circumstance penalty.